Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 4 (15 December 1989)

An art dealer bought a painting described as being by Gabriele Münter but later found it to be a forgery. The court held it was not a sale by description as the buyer, being experts, relied on their own assessment, not the seller's description.

Facts

The plaintiffs, Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd, were art dealers specialising in German Expressionist paintings. The defendants, Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd, were also art dealers but not experts in this specific area. The defendants offered for sale two paintings described in a catalogue as being by the German Expressionist artist, Gabriele Münter, for £6,000 each. The plaintiffs contacted the defendants, and during a telephone conversation, the defendants’ representative explicitly stated that he was not an expert on Münter and that the plaintiffs should satisfy themselves as to the painting’s authenticity. The plaintiffs’ representative, who was considered an expert, inspected the painting. The plaintiffs subsequently bought one of the paintings for £6,000. It was later discovered to be a forgery and worth only £50-£100. The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, arguing that the sale was a ‘sale by description’ under section 13(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, and the painting did not correspond with its description as a work by Münter.

Issues

The central legal issue was whether the sale of the painting constituted a ‘sale by description’ within the meaning of section 13(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This required the court to determine if the seller’s attribution of the painting to Gabriele Münter formed a contractual term, and critically, whether the buyer had relied upon this description when purchasing the artwork.

Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision and dismissed the appeal, finding that this was not a sale by description. Lord Justice Nourse, giving the leading judgment, analysed the meaning of a ‘sale by description’ and emphasised the importance of reliance.

Reasoning of the Court

Nourse LJ reasoned that for a sale to be ‘by description’, the description must be a substantial ingredient in identifying the thing sold. He highlighted that the crucial element is the reliance placed by the buyer on the seller’s description. He stated:

By ‘description’ is meant a description in the contract… But it is not a sale ‘by’ description unless the buyer relies on the description. It is the identification of the goods by description that constitutes a sale by description, not the quality of the goods.

In this case, several factors pointed away from reliance on the seller’s description:

1. The sellers specifically disclaimed any expertise or specialist knowledge about the painting or the artist.
2. The sellers explicitly told the buyers to rely on their own assessment before purchasing.
3. The buyers were themselves dealers holding themselves out as experts in German Expressionist art.
4. The buyers dispatched their own expert to inspect the painting before finalising the purchase.

Nourse LJ concluded that the buyer had purchased the painting based on their own expert judgment, not in reliance on the seller’s description. He observed:

In the circumstances of this case, by far the most important thing is that Mr. Runkel [for the plaintiffs] did not rely on Mr. Hull’s [for the defendants] description of the painting as being by Munter. He relied on his own judgment… That being the case, it is impossible to say that this was a sale by description.

Lord Justice Slade and Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concurred, agreeing that the absence of reliance by the expert buyer on the non-expert seller’s statement was fatal to the claim that it was a sale by description.

Implications

The decision in Harlingdon and Leinster v Hull is a significant clarification of the scope of section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It establishes that a sale is not ‘by description’ merely because a description has been applied to the goods; the buyer must have relied on that description. This case demonstrates that where a buyer possesses greater expertise than the seller and conducts their own inspection, it will be difficult to argue that they relied on the seller’s description. The principle of caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) is therefore highly relevant in transactions between specialist dealers, particularly where one party makes it clear that they are not to be relied upon for their expertise.

Verdict: The appeal was dismissed.

Source: Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 4 (15 December 1989)